The Army's brigades will get bigger again but remain self-contained units as the Army cuts troop strength in the reorganization:
This will increase most brigades to 4,500 troops. Each new brigade will have three infantry or armor battalions (instead of two, as most now do) 18 (instead of 16) 155mm self-propelled artillery vehicles (organized into three batteries instead of two) and more engineer troops (the equivalent of a battalion) for each brigade. The new BCTs (Brigade Combat Teams) will initially consist of 14 infantry (two infantry and one tank battalion), 12 tank (two tank and one infantry battalion) and seven Stryker [brigades]. Three of these 35 brigades will be disbanded over the next few years, but which ones has not been decided yet. By late 2017 the army expects to reduce personnel strength ten percent (to 490,000 troops from the current 547,000).
The battalion breakdown implies that the battalions will return to a triangular structure of three maneuver companies each. Now we call these "heavy" battalions because they are balanced with 2 tank companies and 2 mechanized infantry companies each. If the tank brigades are listed as having tank and [mechanized] infantry battalions, that implies that the tank battalions have 2 tank companies and one mechanized infantry company while the [mechanized] infantry battalion would have 2 mechanized companies and 1 tank company.
The infantry brigades are confusing, however. The "infantry" brigades would include motorized infantry that could have a tank battalion attached. But how do we have paratrooper and air assault brigades with tank battalions? The "infantry" category has to include the paratroopers and airmobile infantry brigades. They can't have tank battalions as part of their organization. Sure, companies or battalions of tanks could be attached to the brigades, to augment them depending on the mission. But I find it hard to believe that they'd simply be part of the brigade structure.
And we won't be keeping the combat strength of our existing brigades if the battalions become triangular. With our current 38 brigades having 2 maneuver battalions and 7 Stryker brigades having 3 maneuver battalions, that is 97 battalions. The reorganization puts us to 32 brigades with 3 battalions each, or 96 battalions. That's close.
I wonder about the surveillance battalion in the brigades that seem way more like glorified forward observers rather than the more traditional "cavalry" recon battalions we used to have at division level or in armored cavalry regiments. Those cavalry units were powerful combined arms units that could fight as well as scout. I'd feel better if the surveillance assets were beefed up to be more like the "cavalry" of pre-Iraq War reorganization.
And I assume this total doesn't count our Ranger regiment.
But by companies, we lose strength. The current 45 brigades would have 8 maneuver companies each (or 9 in the 7 Stryker brigades), for a total of 367 maneuver companies. The 32 larger brigades will have just 288 maneuver companies. Although if we had real "cavalry" battalions in the brigades we'd be able to add up to 96 more maneuver companies to the new structure, for a total of 384 maneuver companies.
Having fewer maneuver companies not a big deal for high intensity conventional warfare. Firepower is more important and is provided by non-trigger pullers. But this is a significant reduction in terms of counter-insurgency warfare which needs bodies on the ground more than firepower.
Granted, our government fully intends to keep out of counter-insurgencies. But we need the cooperation of enemies to carry out our intent, no?
Sure, we could add Army National Guard infantry companies to our battalions to help with counter-insurgency missions. But the Guard doesn't like to break up their battalions and brigades this way. With a Guard general in the Joint Chiefs of Staff now, the active Army's political power to get that down will decrease.
In many ways, adding Guard companies would be ideal since at the company level Guard units are often superior to active units at the company level because Guard units often serve together for many years, building team work and cohesion. It is at battalion and higher levels that the active Army gets an advantage because of opportunities to train as a unit that the Guard's larger units lack. Guard units are based in company-sized armories while active units have entire divisions or more together on a single base.
I still have a lot of questions and concerns. But we should be better off than we were on September 10, 2001, at least.
